Settle Group (202106292)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106292

Settle Group

4 January 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs in her property and the communal areas of the building.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
On 8 February 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She felt that there was “severe housing disrepair” under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Her complaint is summarised as follows:
1. There was “lots” of damp and mould in her property, where she also experienced “excess” heat and cold.
2. There was evidence of “severe subsidence” and poorly fitted windows causing “severe draughts”. She also believed that her balcony railings were under the minimum 1.1m in height.
3. She had concerns over a lack of suitable drainage from the building, and that there could be lead pipes supplying the water servicing the building, which had her and her neighbours feeling “ill”.
4. There was no fire extinguisher or dry riser installed and no measures to protect or evacuate residents in the event of a fire. She felt particularly at risk of this due to the nearby shops which could experience a fire.
5. There had been a pest infestation including flies, wasps and spiders, as a result of being above a row of shops which produced food waste.
6. The main staircase was damaged and “unlevel”, and there were “severe” cracks to the concrete path which meant they were dangerous. She also believed asbestos to be present in the building.
7. She had experienced issues with her kitchen light “blowing”, which she believed to be due to the damp from above her kitchen. She also believed the electrics in the building to be inadequate.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord inspected the resident’s property, with its findings summarised as follows:
1. In respect to the reported damp and mould, it had found minor mould growth in the kitchen and bathroom, of which it advised the resident that wiping the mould would help. The resident did not use the extractor fan in the kitchen as it “rattled” and there was no space for an extractor fan in the bathroom. It had also noted that “large” furniture was blocking the radiator, which would affect its performance.
2. The resident was able to take practical steps to control excessive heat by opening windows and using window coverings. It would consider installing data loggers to measure the temperature and humidity within the property.
3. Although it had found cracks in the interior and exterior walls, these were not significant and did not give it cause for concern. It had found cracks in a communal walkway which, although unsightly they did not pose an immediate risk or structural concern. As a patch repair would not be successful, this work would need to be addressed under a planned maintenance programme.
4. It had found the windows to be of a reasonable standard, and the front door and locking system was in good condition.
5. It would need to further investigate whether the balcony railings were of a suitable height.
6. It would need to further investigate the reported concerns over the drainage and water servicing the building.
7. Asbestos checks were up to date.
8. The anti-slip covering was worn on the stairs, which it would address as a responsive repair, with consideration to resurfacing the staircase under a planned maintenance programme.
9. It did not consider any work to be necessary to the walkways, with only a slight pooling of water in some areas.
10. The commercial waste was well contained. However, the household bin area could be improved potentially by rearranging waste collection.
11. It had identified a repair to the kitchen light, which it would address.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It attached a schedule outlining the issues raised by the resident and its response to each issue. In summary it said that:
1. It partially upheld the complaint, as it acknowledged some repair work was required, though it did find the condition of the building consistent with its age and construction type.
2. It had not identified any building defect which was the cause of the mould. It had offered advice to the resident on minimising condensation in the property.
3. It agreed to install a data logger to measure heat and humidity in the property. It would also arrange a routine repair to check the size and condition of the heating system. In the medium to long term, it would be exploring how it could improve the thermal efficiency of the property.
4. In respect to the resident’s reports of the railings being too low, it needed to investigate further before it could respond in full.
5. It had found no indication of subsidence following its inspection, although it did identify repairs to the brickwork on one of the floors, which it would raise as a responsive repair to address.
6. There were no signs of lead pipework serving the property, however it would undertake a drainage survey. If the resident wanted to have the quality of the water tested in the meantime, her supplier could arrange this.
7. It carried out regular fire risk assessments of the building, with the last assessment having been carried out in January 2020.
8. In respect to noise entering the property, the property’s proximity to a bus route was outside of its control. Its action to ease and adjust the windows would address this in the short term, with further insulation to be explored in the longer term.
9. It agreed to check the commercial bin areas as part of its regular maintenance checks. These were found to be well contained, with no indication of any infestation during its inspection.
10. It confirmed that asbestos would be present due to the age of the building. However, this was only dangerous if disturbed.
11. In respect to the damage to the concrete path, it did not consider this to be a risk. It had found that the stairs were level, however it requested the reapplication of an anti-slip coating to the steps.
12. It would be raising a responsive repair to inspect the kitchen light and to ease and adjust the windows.
13. It confirmed that a full electrical check was completed every five years to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. If further issues were experienced by the resident, she should report them as they arise.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident who raised concerns over the safety of the block. She was also unhappy that she had not received the list of repairs it would be carrying out.
On 3 June 2021, the resident requested the escalation of her complaint, which is summarised as follows:
1. She had not heard back from the landlord, and she had not received a copy of the repairs it would be carrying out.
2. The “cracks and movement [had] got severely worse”.
3. Her flat was uninhabitable because of the heat, and she could not afford to use her aircon as she had incurred debt with her energy supplier due to her property being “poorly insulated”.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it visited the resident’s property, which is summarised as follows:
1. It found that the property had been cleared to allow full accessibility to her kitchen.
2. The resident repeated concerns over the damp and mould on her kitchen ceiling and the plumbing from her kitchen. There had also been evidence of damp and mould on her living room ceiling, which she believed to be coming from above. She also felt that her living room window was not safe, and needed a permanent repair.
3. The plasterwork had cracked around her front door, and there was evidence of blown plaster throughout the property.
4. The landlord gave the resident a £25 shopping voucher following the increased electricity usage to cool the property down.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in scheduling the repairs it had detailed in its stage one complaint response, for which it offered the resident £250 compensation for her time and trouble.
2. It would carry out an inspection of the heating system and a heat loss survey but it could only do this once items were cleared away from radiators. As outlined previously, the resident was able to take steps to reduce any excess heat in the property. It would carry out the heating inspection and install data loggers to measure heat and humidity levels on 15 July.
3. It had found the building to be structurally sound.
4. It had found no evidence of lead pipes in the property and provided the contact details for the resident’s water provider, in order for her to contact them if she had concerns over the quality of the water.
5. Its estates team had visited the bin area three times a week and found no evidence of pest activity.
6. It was looking into a temporary solution to increase the height of the railings while exploring long term solutions.
7. The recent issues that had been raised, such as blown plaster and plumbing issues, would be inspected on 15 July.
8. On 24 June it would reapply anti-slip coating to the affected steps and inspect the kitchen light. On 28 June, it would ease and adjust the windows.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord noted that the resident has declined the repairs outlined in its final complaint response and that it would await to hear from the resident about re-booking the appointments.
On 16 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had agreed to a management transfer to another one-bedroom property.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service. She remained concerned that the landlord was not addressing structural issues in her building, and that the excessive heat in her property resulted in emergency vet treatment for her cat. She wanted to be decanted from the property, and increased compensation as a result of her complaint. She has also raised concerns that the landlord had given her an ultimatum to close this complaint if she wanted to move property, which was due to happen in October 2021.
The landlord subsequently contacted this Service on 1 October 2021 to confirm that it had agreed increased compensation of £600 with the resident, which would be offset against her arrears, enabling her to move. It also confirmed all communal repairs identified during the surveyor inspection had been completed, that it has commissioned a full independent survey of the block to identify any issues which could be dealt with as part of its planned maintenance programme, and that it had temporarily raised the height of the railings in the walkways while awaiting the survey findings.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service to raise further concerns over the condition of her new property. She was also unhappy that she had not received confirmation from the landlord that it had applied the £600 compensation to her rent arrears and said she was seeking a refund of the rent she paid while living at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has previously raised concerns over the effect of the delayed completion of the repairs on her mental health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority to do so in the way that a court, tribunal or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
The resident has also raised concerns over the landlord giving her an “ultimatum” to close her complaint if she wanted to move property, and the condition of her new property, but these matters are outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints that are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence that these matters have been taken through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs in her property and the communal areas of the building.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, to keep in repair and working order the installations for heating and the supply of water, gas and electricity, and to keep the common parts of the building in reasonable repair. The landlord is also obliged to ensure that the property has no category one hazards, as defined by the HHSRS, such as damp and mould, and excess cold and excess heat.
Following the resident raising concerns about outstanding repairs and potential hazards under the HHSRS during February 2021, the landlord took appropriate action by arranging for its surveyor to carry out an inspection. The notes from the inspection show that the surveyor considered the various issues raised by the resident and assessed whether repairs or other works were required. While it is noted that the resident says she did not receive a schedule of works or an update from the landlord following the inspection, the evidence indicates that the landlord enclosed a schedule addressing the resident’s concerns with its stage one complaint response.
However, the landlord failed to progress the issues identified during the surveyor inspection at this time. This was inappropriate given that the surveyor had identified several repairs that required attending to (easing and adjusting the windows, inspection/repair of the kitchen light, and repair of the anti-slip coating on the external steps), and several matters that required further investigation (excess heat and cold, height of external railings and condition of pipework).
The resident had to pursue the landlord further in regard to this by escalating her formal complaint in June 2021. The lack of follow-through was a service failure by the landlord and it was therefore appropriate that it apologised to the resident, offered her compensation and arranged to progress the outstanding matters in its stage two complaint response. The evidence shows that the landlord arranged the outstanding repairs and a further surveyor inspection following its stage two response, but the resident cancelled the appointments. Therefore, the landlord was limited in relation to the steps it could take to progress the outstanding matters that required access to the property.
The landlord’s initial offer of £250 was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed repairs and investigations. It was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of between £50 to £250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
In this case, there was a delay of around four months in the landlord progressing the repairs and further investigations after the initial surveyor inspection. It is not known whether there were any hazards in the property in relation to excess heat and excess cold, and so compensation was warranted for the delay in following up on the investigations into these issues rather than for any excess heat or cold issues themselves. It also has to be taken into account that it was not possible for the landlord to progress the investigation into the excess heat and excess cold issues immediately. This is because the resident’s belongings were blocking access to the radiators and the investigation into the excess heat issue needed to be carried out in warmer weather.
The resident has told this Service that she is seeking a refund of the rent she paid while living at the property. This is not appropriate as the landlord can only be expected to act on outstanding repairs or potential hazards in its properties that it is aware of. There is nothing in the landlord’s records provided to this Service, including its repair records, to suggest that the resident was reporting the issues raised in her complaint on an ongoing basis prior to raising the complaint.
The landlord provided a reasonable response to the other issues raised by the resident. In relation to the mould growth in the property, the surveyor concluded that this was not being caused by a structural defect and provided advice the resident on reducing condensation in the property, for example by increasing ventilation in the property. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of the professionals it engages such as its surveyors and there is nothing to suggest the mould was being caused by an outstanding repair issue. Similarly, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its surveyor who assessed that there was no subsidence at the property or immediate health and safety issues in relation to the cracking to the walkway.
In relation to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the building, the landlord confirmed its policy was to remove any damaged asbestos, of which it found none. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s obligations in relation to managing asbestos in its properties, which do not require it to remove asbestos that is in a good condition and is not going to be disturbed.
The landlord confirmed when it had last carried out a fire risk assessment and this suggests that it was meeting its obligation to carry out regular fire safety inspections. The landlord monitored the condition of the bin areas and its regular estate inspections did not find any evidence of a pest infestation requiring further action.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for repairs satisfactorily.

Reasons

There was a delay in the landlord progressing the repairs and further investigations identified during the initial surveyor inspection, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord responded appropriately through its complaints procedure by apologising to the resident, offering an adequate amount of compensation, and arranging appointments for the outstanding repairs and a further surveyor inspection.

Recommendation

It is recommended that within the next four weeks the landlord confirms to the resident if it has offset the compensation it offered (£600) against her rent arrears. If it has not done this then it should take steps to do so.